Generate a complete Vivado report to a file when inline output is truncated, returning a report_id for reading specific sections.
Generate a full Vivado report to a file. Use when inline reports get truncated or you need the complete output. Returns a report_id usable with read_report_section.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | Report-specific options (e.g. {hierarchical: true}) | |
| output_file | No | Optional custom output path | |
| report_type | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that output is written to a file and that a report_id is returned, but says nothing about whether output_file is overwritten, how long full reports take, or whether the generated file persists across sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, triggering condition, and return value. The critical 'use when' clause is front-loaded right after the purpose statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description correctly fills that gap by naming the return value (report_id) and the tool that consumes it (read_report_section). Combined with the schema's enum and options, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents output_file and options at a basic level. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all—it doesn't explain the nine report_type values or what report-specific options are valid for which type—so it neither compensates for the gap nor subtracts from it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a full Vivado report to a file') and contrasts it with the inline-report path used by siblings such as get_timing_summary or report_power. It falls short of 5 because it never names those sibling tools explicitly, leaving the discrimination implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives a clear triggering condition ('when inline reports get truncated or you need the complete output') and names the follow-up tool read_report_section for consuming the result. No explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites (permissions, runtime cost) are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.